Tractors on Mackinac Bridge??

Soon, instead of waiting for the Friday after Labour Day, you may be able to cross the Mighty Mac on your tractor any time you fancy!
A Bridge Too Far M

Sounds like that applies to actual farming equipment though, not antique tractor rides. The article makes a clear distinction about that.

Interesting.

Knowing the area up there, there are not many farms within a 20 mile radius of The Bridge. Just a lot of trees. The Bridge Authority does have some valid concerns that most modern tractor are quite wide and take up more than one lane, making a big traffic tie up, as passing into the on-coming traffic isn't an option with the curb down the middle of the bridge. Would guess, that if the bill was passed, those tractors would have to travel in the off hours.

Wonder how driving ag tires over the deck grating will do for control of a big tractor?

I wouldn't get your hopes up to bring your antique tractor up there for a Sunday afternoon adventure.....

It sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. How many Michigan farmers routinely transport their equipment across the Mackinac? It can't be very many.

Can the legislature even force the Bridge Authority to allow farm equipment to cross if the authority doesn't want to? Particularly since it's federal interstate highway.

The whole discussion is so stupid. It's clear that they wouldn't allow you to putter across the bridge on your old dualed-up Deere 4630 pulling a 16' wide disc harrow during rush hour. That would be dumb, even for politcians. The article is clear that the equipment would need to meet width and speed requirements, and what's not directly stated, but is implied, is that it would be limited to low-traffic times on the bridge.

It's also obvious that not many farmers use the bridge now due to the cost of getting something across it. $2500 in trucking and permit fees to move the equipment a few miles. If farmers could just pay the toll, jump on, and drive across, even if they had to do it at night, they would use the bridge much more.

"BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?!?!?!?!"

Several year ago I met a large JD combine going west over the new US Hwy 34 bridge between Iowa and Nebraska. I did not see a header on the combine, but over the center barrier I could see that it had dual tires. The roadway was four lane divided highway with wide ten foot shoulders on both sides of both roadways. It was a bright sunny Sunday afternoon and he still had over a quarter mile of cars stacked up behind the combine. I can't imagine trying that on the Mackinac bridge, or anyone allowing it.

> The whole discussion is so stupid. It's clear that they wouldn't allow you to putter across the bridge on your old dualed-up Deere 4630 pulling a 16' wide disc harrow during rush hour. That would be dumb, even for politcians. The article is clear that the equipment would need to meet width and speed requirements, and what's not directly stated, but is implied, is that it would be limited to low-traffic times on the bridge.

I wouldn't make such assumptions without first reading the two bills.

The relevant paragraphs in <a href=http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2021-2022/billintroduced/House/htm/2021-HIB-4165.htm>HB 4165</a> says:

[i:654c4848f0](3) The authority shall allow the driver of a farm tractor or implement of husbandry to pay a toll or charge and cross the bridge if the farm tractor or implement of husbandry meets both of the following conditions:

(a) The farm tractor or implement of husbandry complies with all the applicable requirements of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.1 to 257.923.

(b) The farm tractor or implement of husbandry is able to accelerate to and maintain the minimum speed required to cross the bridge.[/i:654c4848f0]

OK, so what does that mean? Paragraph (3)(a) references the Michigan vehicle code. If you check those sections out, you'll find that size and weight restrictions DO NOT APPLY to 'implements of husbandry'. So not only would it be perfectly legal to pull a sixteen foot tandem disk across the Mac, you could pull a 28 foot disk across it if you so desired.

But what about the minimum speed requirement in (3)(b)? Well, it seems they've taken care of that in <a href=http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2021-2022/billintroduced/House/htm/2021-HIB-4872.htm>HB 4872</a>:

[i:654c4848f0](8) Subject to subsection (17), the maximum speed limit on all limited access freeways upon which a speed limit is not otherwise fixed under this act is 70 miles per hour, which shall be known as the limited access freeway general speed limit. The minimum speed limit on all limited access freeways upon which a minimum speed limit is not otherwise fixed under this act is 55 miles per hour. [b:654c4848f0]This subsection does not apply to an implement of husbandry operating on a limited access freeway between the ingress and egress points on the limited access freeway closest to the Mackinac Bridge for the purpose of crossing the Mackinac Bridge.[/b:654c4848f0][/i:654c4848f0]

Politicians may or may not be dumb. But they're careful to look after their own interests, as well as those of wealthy constituents.